If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wow. I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone ought be demonized, especially for their ideology. Disagreements, discussions, whatever are all well & good. What good does it do to demonize anyone? Whatever happened to tolerance, and the free exchange of ideas?

Sarah Palin said

Within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible,” she said.

Do you know the origin of the term "blood libel"? Do you have any idea? When I wrote she invites, this is as good an example as anything, since it is in todays news. She posted it.

Let me save you the effort of research. Let me use a source that you might accept as not biased on the left.

“Blood Libel”
January 12, 2011 8:28 A.M.
By Jonah Goldberg
I should have said this a few days ago, when my friend Glenn Reynolds introduced the term to this debate. But I think that the use of this particular term in this context isn’t ideal. Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood — usually from children — in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn’s, and now Palin’s, larger point. But I’m not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have.

So, when someone uses patently anti-semitic language, I would say, that is a flat out invitation for those who are not anti-semitic to demonize that person.

As to your "wow", there is your answer.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

^ LOL! So now Palin's an anti-Semite? The amazement I have from this senseless disregard for decency and firm belief that a person can somehow deserve being demonized is growing stronger by the minute here.

"If [Republicans] were around when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members of the Flat Earth Society." -- Pres. Barack Obama

^ LOL! So now Palin's an anti-Semite? The amazement I have from this senseless disregard for decency and firm belief that a person can somehow deserve being demonized is growing stronger by the minute here.

Nice deflection. The comment as doccumented by a certified conservative is anti-semitic. She said it, and if you need more documentation, try this one

Palin's use of 'blood libel' invokes ancient myth about Jews
When Sarah Palin said that efforts to connect statements by her or others to last weekend's Arizona shootings amount to a "blood libel," the controversial political figure set off yet another firestorm, invoking a powerful term with deep and terrifying reverberations in Jewish history.

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Democrat of Florida, who is a close friend of Ms. Giffords, issued a statement condemning her use of the phrase “blood libel.”

“Palin’s comments either show a complete ignorance of history, or blatant anti-Semitism,” said Jonathan Beeton, Ms. Wasserman Shultz’s spokesman. “Either way, it shows an appalling lack of sensitivity given Representative Giffords’s faith and the events of the past week.”

The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement that, in part, came to Ms. Palin’s defense.

“It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder,” Abraham Foxman, the group’s national director, said in a statement. “Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks.”

But Mr. Foxman added that “we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase ‘blood-libel.’ ” He called it a phrase “fraught with pain in Jewish history.”

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of a pro-Israel group called J Street, said that “when Governor Palin learns that many Jews are pained by and take offense at the use of the term, we are sure that she will choose to retract her comment, apologize and make a less inflammatory choice of words.”

Your deflection of the fact that she said it, that it is anti-semitic, and your lack of understanding as to why she is demonized shows that your argument is vapid and baseless.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

Yeah, cab. I'm stupid. Just like everyone else who doesn't tow the liberal ideology line. If only I could just see how truly lacking in knowledge and wisdom I am...

This has nothing to do with you, it has to do with Sarah Palin. Im not sure why you are trying to draw it to yourself.

Sarah Palin used a word that is horribly offensive to those in the Jewish community and gave no thought whatsoever to doing so. This is why i chalk another one up for the "stupid" scoreboard for Palin. She gives absolutely no thought to the words she uses, the way she uses them, and the affects they will have on anyone other than herself. Maybe the word isnt stupid, maybe she should more accurately be described as a megalomaniac. She could very well be brilliant and know whenever she says something controversial there is a, rather large, segment of the population who will stop to listen and buy her book or watch her on TV. There is a somewhat small portion of the public who, i believe, will stop breathing and listen to her speak and wont start breathing against until she finishes her diatribe on anyone who opposes her.

This has nothing to do with you, it has to do with Sarah Palin. Im not sure why you are trying to draw it to yourself.

Sarah Palin used a word that is horribly offensive to those in the Jewish community and gave no thought whatsoever to doing so. This is why i chalk another one up for the "stupid" scoreboard for Palin. She gives absolutely no thought to the words she uses, the way she uses them, and the affects they will have on anyone other than herself. Maybe the word isnt stupid, maybe she should more accurately be described as a megalomaniac. She could very well be brilliant and know whenever she says something controversial there is a, rather large, segment of the population who will stop to listen and buy her book or watch her on TV. There is a somewhat small portion of the public who, i believe, will stop breathing and listen to her speak and wont start breathing against until she finishes her diatribe on anyone who opposes her.

Whether she knew the history behind "blood libel", or she merely read off the teleprompter, she's of course still at fault. Wherever the word came from(for Palin's speech), it's desired effect was to make Palin appear to be the victim...which in itself is wrong, IMO. Regardless she is responsible for her own statements.

Sarah Palin did not commit the shootings in AZ, however when you have a graphic on your website which has crosshairs on Giffords' own district(and also calls her out by name)......obviously it will be brought up when the very person ends up getting shot. Bringing it up it not unfair whatsoever, and at best I hope it can lead to an intelligent discussion on the rhetoric that we use in our political discourse. I cite the President's speech last night as reference on the positives that can hopefully come out of this tragedy.